| 10/8/2009 11:08:00 AM | Email this article • Print this article | Maplewood proceeding with wetland ordinance update
Derrick Knutson
Review staff
For the city of Maplewood, clarity is key when it comes to updating its wetland ordinance.
The City Council listened to a presentation by city staff and a Maplewood resident about proposed changes to the ordinance, and what can be done to make it more understandable from a layman's perspective.
City Planner Shann Finwall explained that updates to buffers (lands that surround wetlands and streams which contain a protective zone of vegetation) and setbacks (how close a structure can be built next to a wetland) won't change significantly in a new ordinance, but the language in a new ordinance likely would.
One area of miscommunication city staff identified between the city and Maplewood residents was the "nonconforming lawn areas" mentioned in current ordinance, which was adopted in 1996.
Finwall said language in the current ordinance might not be that clear regarding what homeowners can do on property with the aforementioned designation.
She explained that in nonconforming lawn areas, residents can build fire pits, put in non-permanent structures, dig and mow.
Finwall added that areas designated "naturalized" don't allow homeowners as many privileges.
"That's what we're tying to protect with this ordinance," she said.
In those areas, Finwall said homeowners can do selective pruning and remove dead trees.
She also mentioned that the city would like to encourage "best management practices," such as building rain gardens and using rain barrels to help control runoff that flows into metro waterways.
She said the city could include incentives in a new ordinance in order to prompt homeowners to implement the best management practices.
Some of the incentives she talked about were awards and recognition for residents who implement best management practices and material goods and coupons to help them in constructing rain gardens, along with a list of other incentives.
Are incentives necessary?
The incentives that Finwall mentioned were a point of debate for the council.
Council member Erik Hjelle commented that if a resident was going to spend some of his or her own money to build a rain garden or utilize some other best management practice, the improvement would have to make sense, and it might be something a homeowner would do anyway without prompting from the city.
"If it's worth doing, you don't have to induce everybody in the world with financial incentives to make them do it," he said. "If it makes sense to do it, people generally will when they're given an opportunity to."
Council member John Nephew said he was also apprehensive about incentives being tied to best management practices.
"I see it as being a very bureaucratically-heavy process," he said.
Council member Will Rossbach said there was some merit to incentives, though.
"I think incentives, if done correctly, can be a good thing," he said.
"I would prefer that we don't abandon that idea, as of yet."
Citizen expertise
Maplewood resident Sharon Sandeen, who works as an educator in New York, has been working closely with Maplewood city staff to update the wetland ordinance.
Sandeen said she's been a lawyer for 25 years, and before that she worked in the California Legislature. In all, she said she has over 30 years of experience drafting legislation and legal documents.
She used that expertise to draft her own wetland ordinance for the city to consider. The city will likely be combining aspects of the staff's draft ordinance and Sandeen's ordinance to craft one document to be considered for approval by the council within the next few months.
Sandeen said there was a problem with what city staff intended, and what the current ordinance actually reads.
"Tell me what you intended, and let's amend the ordinance so it reflects what you intended," she said.
Sandeen added that the "start from scratch" approach was probably best when it comes to updating the ordinance, because adding too many "bells and whistles" to an existing ordinance can make it even more confusing.
Finwall mentioned during the meeting that a "resident guide" detailing the specifics of a new ordinance would also be developed for additional clarity.
Longrie commented that she thought a resident guide to help citizens understand the ordinance was a good idea.
She suggested the guide could detail an appeal process if a resident doesn't agree with a wetland classification near his or her property.
The public speaks
When the forum was opened up for public comment, residents had criticism, questions and some praise about the updating process and the wetland ordinance.
Maplewood resident Ralph Sletten said the city designated a man-made waterway near his home a wetland and he objected to the city "taking (his) property."
His daughter, Elizabeth, followed her father's comments by saying that Sandeen does not represent all Maplewood homeowners.
She then asked the council if Sandeen had been paid for her work on the ordinance.
DuWayne Konewko, the director of Maplewood's community development and parks department, said Sandeen had not been paid for her aid in drafting a new ordinance.
Maplewood resident John Wykoff, who admitted he was anti-government at the meeting, said he thought Maplewood was infringing on residents' property rights with a wetland ordinance.
He added that he had books from 1940 that show Maplewood City Hall sits on what used to be a wetland.
"Does this mean we should tear down this building and restore this property?" he asked.
Another sticking point for Wykoff was the pollution cause by boats on area lakes. Konewko explained that there are laws that govern recreational vehicle pollution on lakes, but that is handled by the Minnesota DNR, not individual cities.
Resident Dave Johnson said he didn't understand why there were three different wetland classifications near his home.
He added that he thought incentives for best management practices are "a little bit of a hypocrisy."
"We don't spray our property, we pick up the leaves and we have about 500 trees," he said. "We pick up after our dog. We do all the best management practices known to man. But the city of Maplewood, for some reason, feels they're above those set of practices."
Resident Steve Bryan didn't have harsh criticisms for the council like the speakers before him, and instead lauded the council, city staff and Sandeen for their work on the ordinance.
"I compliment you people in what's happened, and the way the process has been handled," he said.
"I think it's a good model. You show that city government does respond to citizens' concerns."
Derrick Knutson can be reached at dknutson@lillienews.com or at (651) 748-7825.
|
Article Comment Submission Form
|
